status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' conveys a read-only operation)Skip even though it does not spell out 'non-mutating', and it names the exact reported dimensions. An output schema covers the return shape, so the description provides sufficient behavioral context for a simple status check.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence communicates the complete purpose without wasted words. Every phrase adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a no-parameter status tool: it specifies what is checked and that an output schema defines the result structure. There are no hidden inputs or prerequisites an agent would need clarified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the empty input schema already shows. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter ambiguity exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Show') and concrete resources (ffmpeg/yt-dlp availability, music adapter keys). This clearly distinguishes status from the media-processing sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool reports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description establishes clear context: this is an environment-readiness/diagnostic tool, in contrast to the ingest/analyze/recommend actions listed as siblings. It does not explicitly say 'use before X', but for a zero-parameter status command the intended usage is strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.